[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          SUPPORT FOR PAKISTAN

                                 ______


                          HON. CHARLES WILSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 3, 1994

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, a terrible conflict persists in Kashmir, a 
primarily Moslem State in India. The struggle in Kashmir has endured 
since almost 1947, between Pakistan and India. While Pakistan has been 
admonished for resorting to terrorist crimes, India, once thought of as 
a peaceful nation, is also resorting to some of these horrible acts.
  I commend the following article, an editorial from the New York 
Times, September 6, 1994, edition. I submit this article for my 
colleagues.

                        India's Dirty Little War

       A relentless, deadly struggle goes on and on in India's 
     mainly Muslim state of Kashmir, where New Delhi is trying to 
     crush forces seeking independence or union with Pakistan. The 
     violence comes from both sides, but India's obdurate 
     insistence on resolving a political problem by force has 
     increasingly enmeshed it in a campaign of lawless state 
     terrorism. The ugly results are documented in a new study by 
     Human Rights Watch/Asia.
       Regrettably, Washington, instead of raising its voice to 
     defend human rights, has lowered it in an effort to improve 
     commercial and diplomatic ties. The U.S. may have little 
     power to deter India from repression. But the Clinton 
     Administration should assert American disapproval more 
     forthrightly.
       Kashmir's political status has been disputed almost since 
     the subcontinent was partitioned in 1947. A local Muslim 
     uprising drew armed support from Pakistan. The Hindu 
     maharajah then called in Indian troops who recaptured most of 
     his lost territory. The two countries have confronted each 
     other over tense cease-fire lines ever since. Meanwhile, on 
     the Indian side, a promised plebiscite was never held and the 
     state was formally incorporated into India in 1954. 
     Separatist agitation continued on and off, flaring again into 
     open conflict in 1989.
       Some pro-Pakistani militant groups have resorted to 
     terrorist deeds like kidnapping, assassination and extortion 
     and even to common crime. No political grievance can justify 
     such acts.
       But Human Rights Watch/Asia reports that Indian forces, 
     which are obliged to follow higher standards, have also 
     resorted to reprisal killings and burning down villages. They 
     are also said to be executing many suspects without trial; 
     200 in the first half of this year and 50 in one month alone, 
     according to local human rights groups. There are also many 
     reports of torture and ``disappearances,'' two other common 
     features of state terrorism.
       India insists it has prosecuted some responsible for these 
     crimes, but has offered no information about such 
     prosecutions. The State Department, in its latest annual 
     human rights report, said ``there was little evidence that 
     the responsible officials received appropriate punishment.''
       Until this year, American officials were equally candid in 
     their public statements. But more recently, after New Delhi 
     warned that continued human rights criticism could damage 
     relations, the Clinton Administration has gone silent on the 
     subject. Meanwhile, India has aggressively courted help from 
     the likes of China and Iran to block condemnation by the U.N. 
     Human Rights Commission.
       The Administration needs to find a firm and consistent 
     voice on human rights, whether in powerful countries like 
     India and China or puny ones like Haiti and Cuba. Selective 
     denunciations carry no moral authority. Criticizing the weak 
     but not the strong is bullying, not leadership.
       Meanwhile India, which captured the world's moral 
     imagination with Gandhi's nonviolent struggle for 
     independence, is now in the unflattering company of countries 
     that use deadly force to keep their unhappy citizens in line.

                          ____________________